You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

protest_boy comments on Open thread, Dec. 8 - Dec. 15, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Gondolinian 08 December 2014 12:06AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (289)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: protest_boy 10 December 2014 08:03:02PM 4 points [-]

I have a question about a seemingly complex social issue, so I'm interested if anyone has any insights.

Do protests actually work? Are e.g. the Ferguson/police crime protests a good way of attacking the problem? They seem to me to have a high cost, to be deflecting from the actual problem, and not enough sustained effort by people who care to push through to actual social change in the U.S.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 December 2014 08:11:52PM 4 points [-]

Do protests actually work?

You need to define your goals. Do protests work to achieve what?

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 10 December 2014 08:36:30PM 1 point [-]

Em..change in policy I suppose, isn't all this protest business about it?

Comment author: Lumifer 10 December 2014 09:13:36PM 6 points [-]

Which "change in policy" do Eric Garner protests aim to achieve? A rewriting of how indictment or grand juries work? Which "change in policy" did Occupy aim to achieve?

Comment author: protest_boy 11 December 2014 01:04:30AM 1 point [-]

I think that's one issue with protests. Many people gather with ill defined goals that are tangentially related to what most would agree is the actual problem. The "actual problem" for Occupy relates to unequal distribution of wealth, and the "actual problem" for the recent police brutality protests relates to systemic bias in the criminal justice system. I'm not sure if there actually is this sort of systemic bias, nor am I sure of the implicit claim that "things have gotten worse."

So, what do protests actually achieve, and is that effective in making things better? It seems that they do raise some level of awareness in the sense that more eye balls are on the issue for a short period of time. It's unclear to me that that's effective though, especially since it's a double edged sword. Raising awareness about the issue makes the negative externalities (like rioting and looting) more likely to be picked up and emphasized about the media.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 December 2014 01:08:01AM 3 points [-]

I'm not sure if there actually is this sort of systemic bias

A recent Yvain blog post might be helpful.

Comment author: Ixiel 12 December 2014 02:20:59PM *  2 points [-]

In my area, protests are largely social gatherings of like minded people. I asked protesters on three occasions last year and only two of a couple dozen protesters thought they were reaching an audience that does not already agree. I stress this was not a scientific study, but at least average for anecdote.

Comment author: Sarunas 12 December 2014 04:28:24PM *  3 points [-]

According to Stephen Pinker, protests can turn individual knowledge into mutual knowledge

In individual knowledge, A knows X and B knows X. In mutual knowledge A knows X, B knows X, A knows that B knows X; B knows and A knows X; A knows that B knows that A knows X ad infinitum. And this is a difference that has profound consequences.

For example, why is freedom of assembly enshrined as a fundamental right in a democracy and why are political revolutions often triggered when a crowd gathers in a public square to challenge the president in his palace. Well it is because

when people were at home everyone knew that they loathed the dictator, but no-one knew that other people knew that other people knew that they knew. Once you assemble in a place where everyone can see everyone else everyone knows that everyone else knows that everyone else knows that the dictator is loathed, and that gives them the collective power to challenge the authority of the dictator who otherwise could kick off dissenters one at a time.

This suggests that protests may lead to something in a particular case when most people already have individual knowledge, but they do not have mutual knowledge yet. For example, suppose those people really care about some issue and have idea what to do, then if participating in protests is risky, that signals that all those protesters are willing to take risks in order to achieve their goal (curiously, in this particular case, if protesting is safe (as it is in most Western countries), the signal might be less clear). This way individual knowledge becomes mutual knowledge. So if it is the lack of mutual knowledge that prevents their goals from being achieved, then protests might help. Otherwise, if it is something else that prevents solution (e.g.lack of idea how to solve a problem, various game theoretic (or coordination) problems that are not solved by going from individual to mutual knowledge, etc.) from being achieved, they are probably much more likely to be useless.

Comment author: alienist 11 December 2014 08:17:54AM 4 points [-]

Are e.g. the Ferguson/police crime protests a good way of attacking the problem?

What problem? That Blacks aren't free to steal from and intimidate Asian store owners and then charge at a police officer going for his gun?

Comment author: RowanE 11 December 2014 11:57:51AM 2 points [-]

Whether the protesters are trying to solve a problem that actually exists is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether protests work, and you're making your irrelevant point in an extremely confrontational red-tribe-blue-tribe way. This is exactly what the whole "politics is the mind-killer" thing is about, and doesn't belong here.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 December 2014 04:22:55PM 5 points [-]

Whether the protesters are trying to solve a problem that actually exists is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether protests work

How so? If the problem doesn't actually exist, the protests are guaranteed to NOT work. They might have a variety of different consequences but they cannot work in the sense of solving that problem.

Comment author: RowanE 11 December 2014 06:09:22PM 0 points [-]

I meant that whether these specific protesters are attacking a non-existent problem isn't relevant to the effectiveness of protesters in general. One could make an argument that there's a more general tendency for protesters to attack problems that don't really exist and therefore can't be solved, as a reason why protest is generally ineffective, but I'm pretty sure alienist wasn't doing that.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 December 2014 06:57:40PM 1 point [-]

isn't relevant to the effectiveness of protesters in general.

There is no good answer to the question of the effectiveness of protesters in general. The answer will always be "It depends".

Comment author: bogus 11 December 2014 12:24:16PM *  4 points [-]

I disagree. alienist's answer was a bit flippant, but he's pointing out a real issue. If we're not even sure that there is a problem to be solved, how can we assess what protests are supposed to achieve? His links discuss newly-released grand-jury testimony (among other things) that is significant evidence, and should rationally lead us to alter our views of the Ferguson incident.

Comment author: alienist 13 December 2014 08:16:58AM 4 points [-]

Well, in the parent I listed one potential "problem" that the protests were trying to "solve". You might not think of it as a problem (and I would agree), but at least some of the protesters seem to. In any case the protests probably have in fact helped to "solve" that problem. Given what happened to Officer Wilson, many cops are going to decide that they don't want to risk being the target of the next "anti-racist" media circus/protests and simply avoid policing black neighborhoods.

Comment author: Bugmaster 10 December 2014 08:10:28PM 1 point [-]

I was wondering that too; personally, I have no idea how to even begin answering the question. It would seem that at least some protests do work, as evidenced by the civil rights movement during the Martin Luther King era; but I don't know if this is true in general.

Comment author: knb 11 December 2014 11:23:47PM *  1 point [-]

I think protests work if there is already a critical or near-critical mass of support in the relevant decision-making body (legislature, courts, civil service, etc.) Protests rarely change minds, but they can give already-sympathetic people a new impetus to take action in this area rather than another.

ETA: It also helps if the protesters have specific, focused demands, like "end segregation," or "bring the troops home."

Comment author: wadavis 10 December 2014 09:26:27PM -1 points [-]

Have a look at this post from Death is Bad Blog. It won't answer your questions, but it will help you shine more light on it.